NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT

AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA
, Appellee
,

v.

ALAN CABALLERO
, Appellant

.
N o . 1 CA

- CR 15

- 0668

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2014

- 151107001 The Honorable Scott McCoy
, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office By Thomas Bailey , Phoenix Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender ’s Office By Joel M. Glynn, Phoenix Counsel for AppellantSTATE v. CABALLERO Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

T H O M P S O N , Judge:

¶1 This case comes to us as an appeal under Anders v. California
, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Alan Caballero (defendant) has advised us that, after searching the entire record, he has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law and has filed a brief requesting this court cond uct an Anders review of the record. Defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona
, but he has not done so.

¶2 M esa Police Officers E.S. and D.S. were dispatched to a Fry’s Food Store in Mesa for a n un related medical

- related emergency . When they arrived, Officer D.S. spotted defendant in the Fry’s parking lot making noises and yelling. D.S. approached defendant and told him to “cut it out ,” however
, defendant continued to act “erratically .” Officer D.S. told defe ndant he was being detained , d efendant walk ed away

. ¶3 Officer D.S. then grabbed defendant by the shoulder, an d told him he was under arrest. Defendant turned around and took a boxer’s stance, which prompted Officer D.S. to thro w defendant to the ground and attempt to handcuff defendant

. Officer E.S. assisted Officer D.S. with the arrest; d efendant continued to pull his arms away in order to avoid being handcuffed

. Once arrested, the o fficers drove defendant to the jail

. ¶4 On the way to jail, defendant threatened the officers alluding to his gang ties
, which, according to both officers, caused them to be concerned for their safety. While in jail, a Mesa police officer photographed several gang

- related tattoos on defendant’s face and body. Another o fficer
, Officer A.G.
, met def endant and documented that defendant met three gang

- member identification criteria : self

- proclamation, clothing colors, and photographs of defendant’s tattoos.

¶5 The state charged defendant with four counts: (1 ) Threatening or Intimidating [Victim: Officer E.S.], a class six felony; (2 ) Threatening or Intimidating [Victim: Officer D.S.], a class six felon y; (3 ) Resisting ArrestSTATE v. CABALLERO Decision of the Court

3 [Victims: Officer D.S. and/or Officer E.S.], a class six felon y ; and (4 ) Disorderly Co nduct, a class one misdemeanor . Counts one and t wo of the Indictment further alleged that defendant “was a criminal street gang member

. ”

¶6 A jury convicted defendant of counts one, two and three. Defendant was acquitted of count f our. T he trial court sentenced defendant to a slightly

- mitigated prison term of three years on each count, ordered all three sentences to run concurrently, and gave him 343 da ys of presentence incarceration credit

. ¶7 We have read and considered defendant’s Anders brief, and we have searched the entire record for reversible error. See Leon , 104 Ariz.

a t 300, 451 P.2d at 881. We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. Pursuant to State v. Shattuck , 140 Ariz. 582, 584

- 85, 684 P.2d 154, 156

- 57 (1984), defendant’s counsel’s obligations in this appeal are at an end. Defendant has thirty days from the date of this decision in which to proceed, if he so desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review.

¶8 We affirm the conviction s and sentence s

.